Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 29, 2012 / Notices 12257 

mission. These subcommittees shall 

operate under the provisions of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 

1972, the Government in the Sunshine 

Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and other 

governing Federal statutes and 

regulations, and governing DoD 

policies/procedures. 

Such subcommittees shall not work 

independently of the chartered Task 

Force, and shall report all their 

recommendations and advice to the 

Task Force for full deliberation and 

discussion. Subcommittees have no 

authority to make decisions on behalf of 

the chartered Task Force; nor can they 

report directly to the Department of 

Defense or any Federal officers or 

employees who are not Task Force 

members. 

Subcommittee members, who are not 

Task Force members, shall be appointed 

in the same manner as Task Force 

members. Subcommittee members, if 

not full-time or part-time government 

employees, shall be appointed by the 

Secretary of Defense according to 

governing DoD policy and procedures. 

Such individuals shall be appointed to 

serve as experts and consultants under 

the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109, and shall 

serve as special government employees, 

whose appointments must be renewed 

on an annual basis. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Freeman, Acting Advisory Committee 

Management Officer for the Department 

of Defense, 703–692–5952. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Task 

Force shall meet at the call of the Task 

Force’s Designated Federal Officer, in 

consultation with the Co-Chairs. The 

estimated number of Task Force 

meetings is five per year. 

In addition, the Designated Federal 

Officer is required to be in attendance 

at all Task Force and subcommittee 

meetings for the entire duration of each 

meeting; however, in the absence of the 

Designated Federal Officer, an Alternate 

Designated Federal Officer shall attend 

the entire duration of the meeting. 

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.105(j) and 

102–3.140, the public or interested 

organizations may submit written 

statements to Department of Defense 

Task Force on the Care, Management, 

and Transition of Recovering Wounded, 

Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed 

Force’s membership about the Task 

Force’s mission and functions. Written 

statements may be submitted at any 

time or in response to the stated agenda 

of planned meeting of Department of 

Defense Task Force on the Care, 

Management, and Transition of 

Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured 

Members of the Armed Forces. 

All written statements shall be 

submitted to the Designated Federal 

Officer for the Department of Defense 

Task Force on the Care, Management, 

and Transition of Recovering Wounded, 

Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed 

Forces, and this individual will ensure 

that the written statements are provided 

to the membership for their 

consideration. Contact information for 

the Department of Defense Task Force 

on the Care, Management, and 

Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, 

and Injured Members of the Armed 

Forces Designated Federal Officer can 

be obtained from the GSA’s FACA 

Database—https://www.fido.gov/ 

facadatabase/public.asp. 

The Designated Federal Officer, 

pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.150, will 

announce planned meetings of the 

Department of Defense Task Force on 

the Care, Management, and Transition 

of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured 

Members of the Armed Forces. The 

Designated Federal Officer, at that time, 

may provide additional guidance on the 

submission of written statements that 

are in response to the stated agenda for 

the planned meeting in question. 

Dated: February 23, 2012. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4730 Filed 2–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket ID ED–2012–OESE–0001] 

RIN 1810–AB12 

Proposed Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, And Selection Criteria; 

Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) Program; 

CFDA Number: 84.374A 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

proposes priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria under 

the TIF program. We may use one or 

more of these priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2012 

and later years. We are taking this action 

so that TIF-funded performance-based 

compensation systems (PBCSs) will be 

successful and sustained mechanisms 

that contribute to continual 

improvement of instruction, to increases 

in teacher and principal effectiveness 

and, ultimately, to improvements in 

student achievement in high-need 

schools. To accomplish these goals, we 

propose priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria that 

are designed to ensure that TIF grantees 

use high-quality LEA-wide evaluation 

and support systems that identify 

effective educators in order to improve 

instruction by informing performancebased compensation and other key 

human capital decisions. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before March 30, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by email. To ensure 

that we do not receive duplicate copies, 

please submit your comments only one 

time. In addition, please include the 

Docket ID and the term ‘‘Teacher 

Incentive Fund’’ at the top of your 

comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov to submit 

your comments electronically. 

Information on using Regulations.gov, 

including instructions for accessing 

agency documents, submitting 

comments, and viewing the docket, is 

available on the site under ‘‘How To Use 

This Site.’’ A direct link to the docket 

page is also available at www.ed.gov/ 

programs/teacherincentive. 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, address them to: 

Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education (Attention: Teacher Incentive 

Fund Comments), U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 3E235, Washington, DC 20202. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy is to make all comments received 

from members of the public available for 

public viewing in their entirety on the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available on the Internet. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristen Harper. Telephone: (202) 453– 

6712, or by email: 

TIF4comments@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation To Comment: We invite 

you to submit comments regarding this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12258 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 29, 2012 / Notices 

1Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., Sanders, W.L. (1997). 

Teacher and classroom context effects on student 

achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. 

Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 

11:57–67; Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F. 

(2005). Teachers, schools, and academic 

achievement. Economerica, 73(2):417–458. 

2Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., and 

Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How 

leadership influences student learning. University 

of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and 

Educational Improvement. Found at http:// 

www.cehd.umn.edu/carei/Leadership/ 

ReviewofResearch.pdf. 

notice. To ensure that your comments 

have maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

proposed priority, requirement, 

definition, or selection criterion that 

each comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 and their overall requirement 

of reducing regulatory burden that 

might result from the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. Please let us know of 

any further ways we could reduce 

potential costs or increase potential 

benefits while preserving the effective 

and efficient administration of the 

program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice by accessing 

Regulations.gov. You may also inspect 

the comments, by appointment, in 

person, at 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC, between the hours of 

8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Washington, DC 

time, Monday through Friday of each 

week except Federal holidays. Please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the TIF program is to provide financial 

support to develop and implement 

sustainable PBCSs for teachers, 

principals, and other personnel in highneed schools in order to increase 

educator effectiveness and student 

achievement in those schools. 

Program Authority: The Department of 

Education Appropriations Act, 2012 

(Division F, Title III of Pub. L. 112–74). 

The Statutory Requirements 

The Department’s FY 2012 

appropriation provides TIF funds for 

competitive grants to eligible entities to 

develop and implement PBCSs for 

teachers, principals, and other 

personnel in high-need schools. Eligible 

entities for these funds are: 

(a) Local educational agencies (LEAs), 

including charter schools that are LEAs. 

(b) States. 

(c) Partnerships of— 

(1) An LEA, a State, or both; and 

(2) At least one non-profit 

organization. 

Eligible entities must use TIF funds to 

develop and implement, in high-need 

schools, a PBCS that— 

(a) Considers gains in student 

academic achievement, as well as 

classroom evaluations conducted 

multiple times during each school year, 

among other factors; and 

(b) Provides educators with incentives 

to take on additional responsibilities 

and leadership roles. 

A grantee (1) must demonstrate that 

its PBCS is developed with the input of 

teachers and school leaders in the 

schools and LEAs that the grant will 

serve, and (2) may use TIF funds to 

develop or improve systems and tools 

that would enhance the quality and 

success of the PBCS, such as highquality teacher evaluations and tools 

that measure growth in student 

achievement. In addition, an applicant 

must include a plan to sustain 

financially the activities conducted and 

the systems developed under the grant 

once the grant period has expired. 

Background 

The TIF program is based on the 

premise, supported by abundant 

research, that teachers are the single 

most critical in-school factor in 

improving student achievement.1

Principals are often cited as the second 

most influential in-school factor.2 The 

TIF program is intended to support the 

development and identification of 

effective educators in order to ensure 

that the most effective teachers and 

principals are serving where they are 

needed most, and, ultimately, to 

improve teaching and learning in the 

classroom. 

With the priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria 

proposed in this notice, we seek to build 

on the efforts we began with the FY 

2010 TIF competition to align this 

program, to the extent feasible, with the 

Department’s other programs and 

initiatives that also recognize that 

effective teaching and leading are 

critical factors in improving student 

achievement. These programs and 

initiatives—including the State Fiscal 

Stabilization Fund, the Race to the Top 

Fund, the School Improvement Grants 

program, and the Department’s recent 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) 

Flexibility initiative—all focus, to some 

extent, on the development of systems 

that measure and support educator 

effectiveness. 

We believe that, to be successful and 

sustainable, any PBCS (as defined in 

this notice) must be an integral part of 

a human capital management system 

(HCMS) (as defined in this notice) that 

is well-designed and implemented LEAwide. 

In this notice, we define an HCMS as 

the system an LEA uses to make 

decisions affecting its workforce, such 

as decisions regarding educator (as 

defined in this notice) recruitment, 

hiring, placement, retention, dismissal, 

compensation, professional 

development, tenure, and promotion. 

While all LEAs have such systems, not 

all LEAs refer to such systems as 

‘‘human capital management systems’’ 

or view their human capital decisions as 

part of a comprehensive and cohesive 

system. Further, some HCMSs are not 

designed or implemented to contribute 

to improving instruction and are, 

therefore, limited in their ability to 

positively affect student achievement. 

We believe that, in order to have a 

positive effect on student achievement, 

an LEA’s HCMS must be aligned with 

the LEA’s vision of instructional 

improvement. As defined in this notice, 

a vision of instructional improvement is 

a summary of the key competencies and 

behaviors of effective teaching that an 

LEA views as necessary to produce high 

levels of student achievement, as well as 

how educators acquire or improve these 

competencies and behaviors. In a welldesigned HCMS, an LEA’s vision of 

instructional improvement is reflected 

in the systems used to evaluate 

educators and in the criteria used to hire 

and promote them. The vision is also 

reflected in communications from LEA 

leadership to school-based personnel, 

and in the professional development 

provided to educators. 

For example, an LEA with a vision of 

instructional improvement that includes 

using student achievement data to 

inform instruction might integrate into 

its HCMS evaluations that assess 

whether teachers (as defined in this 

notice) conduct formative assessments 

on a regular basis and differentiate 

instruction based on the assessment 

results. Principal (as defined in this 

notice) evaluations, in turn, might 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 29, 2012 / Notices 12259 

assess the extent to which principals 

demonstrate instructional leadership in 

modeling how teachers can use student 

achievement data to drive instruction. 

Similarly, professional development 

aligned with this vision might include 

helping teachers develop the analytical 

skills needed to use student 

achievement data to make instructional 

decisions. 

We believe that integrating a PBCS 

within an LEA’s larger HCMS will help 

ensure that the PBCS is a successful 

mechanism for improving classroom 

instruction and educator effectiveness. 

Under these proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, therefore, an LEA would, as 

part of its HCMS, use valid and reliable 

educator evaluations, based 

significantly on student growth (as 

defined in this notice), to inform human 

capital decisions, such as decisions 

concerning recruitment, hiring, 

placement, retention, dismissal, 

compensation, professional 

development, tenure, and promotion. In 

this way, educator evaluation systems 

would be an integral component of an 

LEA’s HCMS. Through the use of the 

data generated by these educator 

evaluation systems, the LEA would be 

able to identify strengths and areas for 

improvement for individual educators 

and use this information to award 

performance-based compensation to 

effective educators. 

We believe the coherent approach 

proposed in this notice, in which 

educator evaluation systems and a PBCS 

are integral components of a 

comprehensive HCMS, will sustain the 

TIF-supported reforms well beyond the 

short duration of a TIF grant period. 

This approach will avoid the 

sustainability challenges associated 

with some existing performance-based 

compensation programs that provide 

awards using a system that is 

disconnected from or ancillary to the 

official evaluation systems an LEA uses 

to assign educator evaluation ratings. In 

such instances, using an evaluation for 

the PBCS that is different from the 

evaluation used for the educator 

evaluation systems creates a 

burdensome duplication of effort that 

does not advance the coherence and 

sustainability of the TIF-funded reforms 

as fully as a comprehensive HCMS 

would. 

Furthermore, we believe that 

integrating a PBCS within an LEA’s 

HCMS will improve the LEA’s ability to 

attract, retain, and promote effective 

educators in high-need schools (as 

defined in this notice) and hard-to-staff 

subjects in these schools. To achieve 

this goal, we propose that a TIF grantee 

develop and implement performancebased compensation within its 

comprehensive, district-wide HCMS to 

help ensure high-need schools are 

staffed with effective teachers. To meet 

the proposed definition of a PBCS in 

this notice, the PBCS must (in addition 

to meeting other definitional 

requirements described elsewhere in 

this notice) provide additional 

compensation based on one of two basic 

PBCS design options: (1) Additional 

compensation for teachers and 

principals who have been deemed 

effective or, as an alternate approach, (2) 

additional compensation for teachers 

who have been deemed effective and 

agree to take on career ladder positions 

(as defined in this notice) while also 

compensating effective principals. The 

first option would compensate 

educators based solely on a 

determination of their effectiveness, 

while the second option would reward 

effective teachers who agree to serve as 

school-based instructional leaders in, 

for example, master teacher or coach 

positions. Although both options 

require additional components to 

conform with the PBCS definition 

included in this notice, we propose to 

give each applicant a choice on the 

basic design of the PBCS it chooses to 

develop and implement. Whichever 

approach an applicant proposes to 

implement, the PBCS must use the 

information generated by the educator 

evaluation systems to recognize and 

reward the important contribution of 

effective educators in high-need 

schools. We believe this recognition and 

reward, especially when combined with 

other reforms, such as those that 

improve working conditions, will assist 

LEAs in attracting and retaining 

effective educators in high-need 

schools. 

Proposed Priorities 

This notice contains five proposed 

priorities. 

Types of Priorities 

We may choose, in the notice of final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, to designate any of 

these priorities as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational priorities, or 

to include the substance of these 

priorities in the requirements or the 

selection criteria. We may also decide to 

include the substance of the 

requirements or the selection criteria in 

the priorities. 

Under an absolute priority, as 

specified by 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we 

would consider only applications that 

meet the priority. Under a competitive 

preference priority, we would give 

competitive preference to an application 

by (1) awarding additional points, 

depending on the extent to which the 

application meets the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an 

application that meets the priority over 

an application of comparable merit that 

does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

With an invitational priority, we 

would signal our interest in receiving 

applications that meet the priority; 

however, consistent with 34 CFR 

75.105(c)(1), we would not give an 

application that meets an invitational 

priority preference over other 

applications. 

Proposed Priority 1—An LEA-Wide 

Human Capital Management System 

(HCMS) With Educator Evaluation 

Systems at the Center 

Background 

The purpose of this priority is to 

support State and LEA efforts to 

strengthen LEAs’ HCMSs, of which the 

PBCS is a part, by using rigorous 

evaluation systems to inform various 

human capital decisions. For several 

reasons, we believe that a PBCS is more 

likely to be successful and improve 

teaching and learning when it is 

integrated within an LEA’s HCMS. First, 

a comprehensive HCMS provides a 

mechanism through which an LEA can 

broadly communicate the competencies 

of effective teaching. By evaluating a 

teacher based on these competencies, 

the LEA is able to signal their 

importance. Second, a comprehensive 

HCMS provides a mechanism through 

which an LEA can marshal the 

resources and expertise needed to 

improve educator effectiveness, the 

primary objective of a PBCS. For 

example, evaluation results that are 

used to identify educators for a 

performance-based award could also 

reveal the need for a particular type of 

professional development to support 

struggling educators. As part of its 

HCMS, the LEA could ensure that its 

professional development office is 

informed about the identified need so 

that the appropriate professional 

development is delivered. Likewise, a 

comprehensive HCMS could provide an 

LEA with information about educator 

effectiveness that the LEA uses in 

recruiting new talent to its high-need 

schools. Thus, so long as the LEA staff 

who are responsible for implementing 

the HCMS have the authority and 

resources required to respond to needs 

identified by the HCMS, the HCMS will 

do more than simply provide the 

important evaluation information that is 

necessary to determine which educators 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12260 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 29, 2012 / Notices 

3Taylor, Eric S., John H. Tyler. (2011). ‘‘The 

Effect of Evaluation on Performance: Evidence from 

Longitudinal Student Achievement Data of Midcareer Teachers,’’ NBER Working paper w16877. 

Retrieved November 7, 2011: http://www.nber.org/ 

papers/w16877. 

are eligible for performance-based 

compensation. 

Further, we believe that an LEA is 

more likely to sustain a PBCS that is 

embedded within a comprehensive 

HCMS. Development and 

implementation of high-quality 

evaluation systems within an LEA-wide 

HCMS, as proposed in this notice, 

would require the involvement of a 

variety of LEA stakeholders and the 

commitment of LEA leadership. We 

believe that these educator evaluation 

systems, and their expanded use for 

human capital decisions, will produce 

far-reaching change throughout the LEA. 

The high-level and system-wide 

investment required to develop an 

evaluation-driven HCMS, and the 

fundamental improvements it will 

generate, will help ensure that the 

HCMS, including its PBCS component, 

is likely to last far beyond the short 

duration of a TIF grant. 

To advance its vision of instructional 

improvement, an LEA must adopt 

carefully designed human capital 

strategies. As one example of a human 

capital strategy, an LEA might develop 

a professional development program 

that addresses a particular high-priority 

competency, and the LEA might 

implement that program in schools in 

which the teacher evaluations reveal the 

highest need. As another example, an 

LEA might develop an aggressive 

program of financial incentives to 

encourage effective teachers of hard-tostaff subjects to accept teaching 

positions in high-need schools. As a 

third example, an LEA might elect to 

provide teachers in high-need schools 

with extra resources, such as specially 

trained para-educators who help 

provide routine intervention services for 

struggling students. 

For these reasons, through proposed 

Priority 1, we would require each 

applicant for a TIF grant to include in 

its application a description of how the 

HCMS of each participating LEA—as it 

exists currently and with any 

modifications that may be needed— 

would (1) align with the LEA’s vision of 

instructional improvement; (2) use 

evaluation information to inform human 

capital decisions, such as recruitment, 

hiring, placement, retention, dismissal, 

compensation, professional 

development, tenure, and promotion; 

and (3) include human capital 

strategies, such as extra compensation, 

opportunities for instructional 

leadership, extra resources, improved 

working conditions, and quality 

professional development, to ensure 

that high-need schools are able to attract 

and retain effective educators. To the 

extent that an applicant needs to modify 

its current HCMS to incorporate these 

features, the applicant must describe its 

planned modifications and provide a 

timeline for implementing them. 

Proposed Priority 1 

To meet this priority, the applicant 

must include, in its application, a 

description of its LEA-wide HCMS, as it 

exists currently and with any 

modifications proposed for 

implementation during the project 

period of the grant. The application 

must describe— 

(1) How the HCMS is or will be 

aligned with the LEA’s vision of 

instructional improvement; 

(2) How the LEA uses or will use the 

information generated by the evaluation 

systems it describes in its application to 

inform key human capital decisions, 

such as decisions on recruitment, 

hiring, placement, retention, dismissal, 

compensation, professional 

development, tenure, and promotion; 

(3) The human capital strategies the 

LEA uses or will use to ensure that highneed schools are able to attract and 

retain effective educators; and 

(4) To the extent modifications are 

needed to an existing HCMS to ensure 

that it includes the features described in 

response to paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) 

of this priority, a timeline for making 

the modifications, provided that the use 

of evaluation information to inform the 

design and delivery of professional 

development and the award of 

performance-based compensation under 

the applicant’s proposed PBCS in highneed schools begins no later than the 

third year of the grant’s project period. 

Proposed Priority 2: LEA-Wide 

Educator Evaluation Systems Based, in 

Significant Part, on Student Growth 

Background 

In proposed Priority 2, we seek to 

build on our prior efforts to support 

educator evaluation systems as critical 

components of an LEA’s 

implementation of effective PBCSs. As 

we did in the FY 2010 TIF competition, 

we propose to require applicants to 

establish evaluation systems for both 

teachers and principals that are based 

on student growth, observations, and 

other factors selected by the applicant. 

Consistent with the authorizing statute, 

these evaluations would be used to 

assess the performance of educators 

throughout the LEA and, in high-need 

schools, would serve as the basis for 

their eligibility for performance-based 

compensation under a TIF-funded 

PBCS. 

For the reasons outlined in the 

following paragraphs, we believe that 

PBCSs in high-need schools will be 

more successful if educator evaluation 

systems are implemented on an LEAwide basis and generate an overall 

effectiveness rating for each educator 

employed by the LEA. The LEA can 

then use an educator’s overall 

evaluation rating to make performancebased compensation determinations in 

high-need schools under its TIF-funded 

PBCS. 

Implementing Educator Evaluation 

Systems LEA-wide. We believe that 

reforms of educator evaluation systems 

are more likely to receive the broad LEA 

commitment that is crucial to their 

success and sustainability if the same 

systems are used to evaluate every 

educator within an LEA. In proposing 

an LEA-wide approach, we seek to 

prevent situations in which a TIF 

project conducts evaluations of staff 

employed in a subset of an LEA’s 

schools that are separate from the 

official educator evaluation systems the 

LEA uses to provide overall evaluation 

ratings. With such ancillary evaluations, 

a teacher in a high-need school might be 

evaluated once to determine eligibility 

for a TIF-funded performance-based 

award and then be evaluated again 

under separate criteria that the LEA uses 

for purposes of the teacher’s overall 

performance rating. Consequently, when 

TIF funding ends, the ancillary 

evaluations that had been supported by 

a TIF-funded project are also likely to 

end. 

Similarly, when a TIF project operates 

in isolation from an LEA’s official 

evaluation system, the needs of 

teachers, principals, or schools 

identified through the TIF-funded 

evaluation process are less likely to be 

factored into the LEA-wide support 

systems operated by the LEA’s central 

office, such as school improvement 

plans and related professional 

development programs. In such a 

situation, the TIF-funded PBCS would 

not benefit from the economies of scale 

and resources that LEA-wide evaluation 

systems can offer. 

Additionally, the educator evaluation 

systems described in proposed Priority 

2 are, in themselves, extremely valuable 

tools for professional development and 

improvement.3 When the evaluation 

rubrics of these systems are aligned with 

the key competencies the LEA has 

identified in its vision of instructional 

improvement, the feedback and 

professional learning inherent in the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 29, 2012 / Notices 12261 

evaluation process will give all 

educators a clearer understanding of 

what the LEA has identified as the key 

competencies needed to be effective 

educators. 

For these reasons, we believe that 

LEA-wide educator evaluation systems 

will strengthen the sustainability of TIFfunded efforts to improve the practice of 

educators across the LEA, including 

those in high-need schools, and increase 

the pool of effective educators available 

to serve in high-need schools. 

Overall Evaluation Rating. In this 

priority, we propose to require that an 

LEA’s evaluation systems aggregate the 

ratings on measures included in its 

evaluation to generate, at least annually 

for each educator, an overall evaluation 

rating (or overall rating), such as highly 

effective, effective, or not effective. For 

both teachers and principals, this 

overall rating would be based, in 

significant part, on student growth. For 

the vast majority of teachers, it would be 

based, in significant part, on student 

growth at the classroom level. By 

classroom-level student growth, we 

mean the academic growth of the 

students in the teacher’s own classroom. 

LEAs would also have discretion to use 

student growth at the grade or schoolwide level for teachers who do not have 

regular instructional responsibilities. 

For such teachers, which may include, 

for example, reading specialists or 

teachers in career ladder positions with 

no regular instructional responsibilities, 

student growth data at the classroom 

level may not be appropriate or 

available. Such teachers may be 

evaluated based on student growth in 

either the classrooms of the teachers 

they assist, or at the school level. We 

anticipate that LEAs will develop 

specialized evaluation rubrics that 

reflect the unique responsibilities 

required of teachers in these positions, 

as well as their unique contribution to 

improving growth in student 

achievement. 

We believe that an overall rating is 

necessary to facilitate a meaningful 

PBCS in the high-need schools 

identified for the TIF project. This 

proposed priority would be 

implemented in conjunction with 

Proposed Requirement 1—PerformanceBased Compensation for Teachers, 

Principals, and Other Personnel, which 

is described later in this notice. Under 

Proposed Requirement 1, only educators 

who earn an overall rating of effective 

or higher would be eligible for a 

performance-based award under the 

LEA’s PBCS. By proposing that the 

PBCS use this overall rating, we intend 

to ensure that educators eligible for 

performance-based compensation in 

high-need schools perform at minimum 

thresholds on all aspects of the 

evaluation rubric, including the student 

growth outcome measure. Thus, in 

evaluating and rewarding teachers 

receiving performance-based 

compensation under a TIF program, 

LEAs could not ignore extremely low 

student growth, and focus exclusively, 

for example, on a teacher’s classroom 

practice measure. We believe that 

educator evaluations should consider 

both practice and student outcome data 

such that, as required by the TIF 

authorizing statute, student growth is a 

significant part of the overall rating. 

In addition, an overall rating provides 

the LEA with a single index—one for 

teachers and one for principals—with 

which to identify effective educators. 

The LEA can use this information to 

identify effective educators and recruit 

them to high-need schools. With data on 

the distribution of overall ratings, LEA 

leaders would also be able to examine 

the distribution of effective educators 

across its schools and ensure that 

effective educators are equitably 

distributed in high-poverty and highminority schools. 

Although we are proposing an overall 

rating that aggregates the various 

measures included in an LEA’s educator 

evaluations, we also recognize that the 

individual, disaggregated measures offer 

invaluable information for an educator’s 

professional growth. Educators value 

insightful feedback based on 

observations of their practice and gain 

perspective on their efforts from a 

review of their students’ academic 

growth data. We expect TIF grantees to 

use the data generated from their 

evaluation systems to identify the 

professional development needs of their 

educators, using this information to 

guide focused and differentiated 

professional development as a strategy 

to improve instruction, thereby 

contributing to improved educator 

effectiveness and student achievement. 

Finally, we note that the requirement 

to provide an overall evaluation rating 

in this proposed priority is consistent 

with the requirements of the Race to the 

Top Fund program. Similar to Race to 

the Top applicants, TIF applicants must 

propose evaluation systems that 

differentiate effectiveness among 

educators. We anticipate that, in their 

proposed evaluation rubric, applicants 

would reserve overall ratings of effective 

or higher for educators whose students 

achieve an acceptable rate of student 

growth (e.g., at least one grade level in 

an academic year). Similarly, we would 

expect that an overall rating of highly 

effective would be reserved for an 

educator whose students achieve high 

rates of growth (e.g., at least one and 

one-half grade level in an academic 

year). 

Proposed Priority 2 

To meet this proposed priority, an 

applicant must include, as part of its 

application, a plan describing how it 

will develop and implement its 

proposed LEA-wide educator evaluation 

systems. The plan must describe— 

(1) The frequency of evaluations, 

which must be at least annually; 

(2) The evaluation rubric for 

educators that includes at least three 

performance levels and the following— 

(i) Two or more observations during 

each evaluation period; 

(ii) Student growth, which for the 

evaluation of teachers with regular 

instructional responsibilities must 

include growth at the classroom level; 

and 

(iii) Additional factors determined by 

the LEA; 

(3) How the evaluation systems will 

generate an overall evaluation rating 

that is based, in significant part, on 

student growth; and 

(4) The applicant’s timeline for 

implementing its proposed LEA-wide 

educator evaluation systems. Under the 

timeline, the applicant must implement 

these systems as the LEA’s official 

evaluation systems for assigning overall 

evaluation ratings for at least a subset of 

educators or schools no later than the 

beginning of the second year of the 

grant’s project period. The applicant 

may phase in the evaluation systems by 

applying them, over time, to additional 

schools or educators so long as the new 

evaluation systems are the official 

evaluation systems the LEA uses to 

assign overall evaluation ratings for all 

educators within the LEA no later than 

the beginning of the third year of the 

grant’s project period. 

Proposed Priority 3: Improving Student 

Achievement in Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Background 

We believe that a PBCS can be an 

important part of a coherent strategy 

that advances the national goal of 

increasing student achievement in the 

areas of science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics in highneed schools. This priority, therefore, 

supports the creation of STEM-focused 

instructional leadership positions with 

the goal of helping LEAs build a ‘‘corps’’ 

of STEM master teachers in high-need 

schools. 

The development and support of a 

cadre of master STEM teachers has been 

recommended by many in the field of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12262 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 29, 2012 / Notices 

STEM education, perhaps most 

prominently by the National Research 

Council (NRC) in its 2000 report, 

Educating Teachers of Science, 

Mathematics, and Technology: New 

Practices for the New Millennium. As 

NRC noted in its report, STEM master 

teachers can assume a variety of 

different roles to support improvements 

in instruction and promote higher levels 

of student achievement. They can serve 

as specialists in high-need schools; 

design and provide professional 

development to other teachers; coach 

struggling teachers or serve as mentors 

to novice teachers; develop curriculum 

and classroom materials to support 

instruction; and work with institution of 

higher education faculty to deliver preservice or in-service professional 

learning. 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must propose, at a minimum, to use its 

PBCS to compensate teachers who agree 

to take on career ladder positions to 

improve STEM instruction and 

achievement throughout the school. 

Although applicants will determine the 

process and factors they will use to 

select strong candidates for these career 

ladder positions, we propose that, to 

meet this priority, an applicant must 

restrict eligibility for STEM-focused 

career ladder positions to STEM 

teachers who receive an overall rating of 

effective or higher under the evaluation 

system described in the application, and 

select candidates based on criteria that 

are predictive of ability to lead other 

teachers. Further, an applicant may—in 

addition to rewarding effective STEM 

teachers who agree to take on STEMfocused career ladder positions— 

include other features in its plan, such 

as offering financial incentives to recruit 

teachers who receive an overall rating of 

effective or higher and agree to teach a 

STEM subject in high-need schools. An 

applicant must also describe how the 

HCMS will support a broad 

commitment to STEM education, 

including how it plans to provide 

challenging STEM coursework to 

students, support teachers in the 

delivery of that STEM coursework, and 

develop partnerships with local STEM 

experts. 

Proposed Priority 3 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must include a plan in its application 

that describes the applicant’s strategies 

for improving instruction in STEM 

subjects through various components of 

the LEA’s HCMS, including its 

professional development, evaluation 

systems, and PBCS. At a minimum, the 

plan must describe— 

(1) How the LEA will develop a corps 

of STEM master teachers, who are 

skilled at modeling for peer teachers 

pedagogical methods for teaching STEM 

skills and content at the appropriate 

grade level, by providing additional 

compensation to teachers who— 

(i) Receive an overall evaluation 

rating of effective or higher under the 

evaluation system described in the 

application; 

(ii) Are selected based on criteria that 

are predictive of the ability to lead other 

teachers; 

(iii) Demonstrate effectiveness in one 

or more STEM subjects; and 

(iv) Accept STEM-focused career 

ladder positions; 

(2) How the LEA will identify, 

evaluate, and develop the unique 

competencies that, based on evaluation 

information or other evidence, 

characterize effective STEM teachers; 

(3) How the LEA will identify hardto-staff STEM subjects, and use the 

HCMS to attract effective teachers to 

positions providing instruction in those 

subjects; 

(4) How the LEA will leverage 

community support, resources, and 

expertise to inform the implementation 

of its plan; and 

(5) How the LEA will ensure that 

financial and non-financial incentives, 

including performance-based 

compensation, offered to reward or 

promote effective STEM teachers are 

adequate to attract and retain persons 

with strong STEM skills. 

(6) How the LEA will ensure that 

students have access to and participate 

in rigorous and engaging STEM 

coursework. 

Priority 4: New Applicants to the 

Teacher Incentive Fund 

Background 

Under proposed Priority 4, we seek to 

broaden the impact of the TIF program 

by giving priority to LEAs not 

previously served by a TIF project. This 

priority will help provide such LEAs 

with a greater opportunity to receive TIF 

funding to support their efforts to 

implement new strategies—sustainable 

performance-based compensation, in 

particular—for attracting and retaining 

effective teachers in their high-need 

schools. 

Elsewhere in this notice, we have 

proposed selection criteria to award 

points to applicants that have prior 

experience using evaluation information 

to inform human capital decisions. 

Together with this proposed priority, we 

hope to support and further the efforts 

of LEAs that, without the aid of prior 

TIF financial support, have already 

taken steps to develop and implement 

the evaluation systems necessary to 

support sustainable and successful 

PBCSs. 

Proposed Priority 4 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must provide an assurance, which the 

Department accepts, that each LEA to be 

served by the proposed project has not 

previously participated in a TIFsupported project. 

Proposed Priority 5—An Educator 

Salary Structure Based on Effectiveness 

Background 

As previously discussed, some 

existing performance-based 

compensation programs face 

sustainability challenges due to their 

reliance on performance evaluations 

that are disconnected from the official 

evaluation systems an LEA uses to 

assign educator evaluation ratings. 

Another challenge to a PBCS’s 

sustainability occurs where educator 

incentives are an ancillary component 

(e.g., a one-time bonus) of an educator’s 

compensation. In such cases, 

performance-based compensation can 

more easily be eliminated, particularly 

in difficult budget times. One way to 

ensure that a PBCS continues after the 

end of the grant period, and is sustained 

through periods of an LEA’s budget 

fluctuations, is to award the additional 

compensation described under 

Proposed Requirement 1 (PerformanceBased Compensation for Teachers, 

Principals, and Other Personnel) not as 

incentive awards or bonuses, but as part 

of an educator’s salary. To do so, an 

applicant would develop a plan to 

modify its existing single salary 

schedule to create a new salary structure 

based on educator effectiveness and 

other factors. While advancement on the 

revised salary structure may be based on 

a number of factors, educator 

effectiveness would be a required 

component. We believe that grantees 

that are able to move to a new salary 

structure of this kind based on educator 

effectiveness will be most likely to 

continue to financially reward teachers 

and principals for their performance 

after the grant period ends. 

Proposed Priority 5 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must propose a comprehensive revision 

to each participating LEA’s salary 

structure as part of its plan for 

implementing its proposed PBCS. At a 

minimum, the applicant must 

describe— 

(a) How each LEA will use overall 

evaluation ratings based, in significant 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 29, 2012 / Notices 12263 

part, on student growth to determine 

educator salaries; 

(b) The salary increase that educators 

with an overall evaluation rating of 

effective or higher would receive in 

each LEA, as well as how TIF funds 

used for salary increases would be used 

only to support the additional cost of 

the revised salaries for educators in 

high-need schools; and 

(c) Each LEA’s timeline for using the 

proposed salary structure to compensate 

educators in high-need schools, 

provided that the use of overall 

evaluation ratings for determining 

educator salaries begins no later than 

the third year of the project period. 

Proposed Requirements 

In order to promote sustained and 

successful PBCSs in high-need schools, 

we propose to establish seven 

requirements. We may apply one or 

more of these requirements in any year 

in which we run a competition under 

the TIF program. These requirements 

are in addition to the statutory 

requirements that apply to the program 

and any priorities, definitions, and 

selection criteria we announce in the 

notice inviting applications for a TIF 

competition. 

Proposed Requirement 1— 

Performance-Based Compensation for 

Teachers, Principals, and Other 

Personnel 

Background: Under the TIF 

authorizing legislation and 

appropriations language, to receive a 

TIF grant, eligible entities must develop 

and implement in high-needs schools a 

PBCS that considers gains in student 

academic achievement as well as 

classroom evaluations and provides 

educators with incentives to take on 

additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles. Consistent with this 

statutory mandate, we propose to 

require each applicant to describe, in its 

application, how its PBCS meets the 

definition of a PBCS set forth in this 

notice. Each applicant would thereby 

need to describe how it will provide, 

through its PBCS, performance-based 

compensation in one of the following 

ways: (1) Additional compensation for 

teachers and principals in high-need 

schools who earn an overall rating of 

effective or higher under the evaluation 

systems described in its application and 

additional compensation for effective 

teachers who take on additional 

responsibilities and leadership roles; or 

(2) additional compensation for teachers 

in high-need schools who both earn an 

overall rating of effective or higher 

under the evaluation system described 

in its application and take on career 

ladder positions. This second option 

must also include additional 

compensation for principals under at 

least one of the following conditions: 

additional compensation for principals 

who earn an overall rating of effective 

or higher under the evaluation system 

described in the application or 

additional compensation for effective 

principals who agree to take on 

additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles. 

The following examples illustrate 

how different PBCSs can meet the 

definition of performance-based 

compensation proposed in this notice: 

Example 1: An applicant might propose a 

PBCS that provides a stipend for all teachers 

and principals who are deemed effective or 

higher. This PBCS does not include 

compensation for career ladder positions, but 

it does offer compensation for teachers who 

take on additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles by providing special 

stipends for teachers who agree to observe 

their peers for evaluative purposes. By 

proposing to design its PBCS in this way, the 

applicant would demonstrate in its 

application that its PBCS meets the first 

option provided in the definition of 

performance-based compensation, as 

described in the previous paragraphs. 

Example 2: An applicant might propose a 

PBCS that provides compensation to teachers 

who are deemed effective or higher only if 

they also take on a career ladder position, 

such as mentor teacher or instructional 

coach. In addition, the applicant’s PBCS 

would provide compensation to principals 

who are deemed effective or higher. By 

proposing to design its PBCS in this way, the 

applicant would demonstrate in its 

application that its PBCS meets the second 

option under the definition of performancebased compensation, as described in the 

previous paragraph. In this PBCS, there likely 

would be fewer career ladder positions than 

effective teachers who are eligible to fill 

them, so only a subset of effective teachers 

would actually earn the additional 

compensation associated with this approach. 

Additionally, under this proposed 

requirement, an applicant that chooses 

to address either of the following areas 

as part of its PBCS also must describe 

in its application how it will provide 

performance-based compensation to: (a) 

other personnel in high-need schools 

based, in significant part, on student 

growth, which may include wholeschool level student growth; or (b) 

educators who have received an overall 

rating of effective or higher under the 

evaluation systems described in the 

application (or under a comparable 

evaluation system in another LEA) and 

who either: transfer from a school in the 

LEA that is not high-need to a high-need 

school, or, for educators who previously 

worked in another LEA, are hired to 

work in a high-need school. 

Through this requirement and its 

reference to the proposed definition of 

a PBCS, we are proposing that an 

applicant’s PBCS meet several 

requirements. First, we propose to 

require that, for all components of an 

applicant’s proposed PBCS relating to 

educators, additional compensation 

could only be provided if it were based 

on the educator’s overall rating, as 

opposed to student growth alone or 

classroom observations alone. As 

discussed in the Background section for 

proposed Priority 2, meeting this 

requirement would ensure that student 

growth is a significant factor in 

determining who is eligible for 

additional compensation. 

Second, only teachers and principals 

who receive an overall rating of effective 

or higher under the evaluation systems 

described in the TIF application would 

be eligible to receive additional 

compensation, including compensation 

for taking on additional responsibilities 

and leadership roles. By building a 

measure of educator effectiveness into 

the ‘‘additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles’’ component of the 

PBCS, we believe that we can ensure 

that those taking on these 

responsibilities and roles through the 

TIF program have a record of 

effectiveness in the classroom. 

Third, through this proposed 

requirement and its reference to the 

proposed definition of a PBCS, grantees 

could use TIF-funded PBCSs as a 

recruitment tool. This option would be 

available, at an applicant’s discretion, to 

supplement the PBCS components that 

are required. If a grantee elects to offer 

compensation as a recruitment tool, 

educators who receive an overall rating 

of effective or higher would be eligible 

to receive additional compensation 

under the PBCS if they transfer within 

the LEA from a non-high-need school to 

a high-need school, or, for educators 

who previously worked in another LEA, 

if they are hired to work in a high-need 

school. Before compensating effective 

educators who are recruited from 

another LEA, an LEA would have to 

establish that the other LEA uses an 

evaluation system that is comparable to 

the system described in the application. 

To be comparable, the evaluation 

system must, at a minimum, generate an 

overall rating that is based on two or 

more observations each year; student 

growth, in significant part; and other 

factors determined by the evaluating 

LEA. 

Finally, consistent with the TIF 

authorizing legislation and 

appropriations language, this 

requirement and its reference to the 

proposed definition of a PBCS would 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12264 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 29, 2012 / Notices 

provide that an applicant may also 

include in its PBCS a component that 

recognizes and rewards school-based 

staff who are neither teachers nor 

principals. These staff, referred to as 

‘‘other personnel’’ in TIF’s authorizing 

statute, might include, for example, 

school counselors, media specialists, or 

para-educators. Under this proposed 

requirement and its reference to the 

proposed definition of a PBCS, an 

applicant would have broad discretion 

in designing the criteria for 

performance-based compensation for 

other personnel, but any such criteria 

would need to include, in significant 

part, student growth, which may be 

whole school-level growth. (Whole 

school-level growth may be one option 

for this purpose, as other personnel may 

not have instructional responsibilities 

for a specific group of students on an 

on-going basis. LEAs may also consider 

developing specialized rubrics to assist 

in evaluating other personnel.) 

The following charts illustrate how 

applicants can meet proposed 

requirement 1 by describing a PBCS that 

meets each of the statutorily prescribed 

elements of such a system. As discussed 

earlier in this notice, under the TIF 

authorizing legislation, a PBCS must, at 

a minimum— 

• Provide performance-based 

compensation to both teachers and 

principals; 

• Base the performance-based 

compensation on student growth, 

multiple observations, and other factors; 

and 

• Provide incentives to educators to 

take on additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles. 

With these statutorily-required 

elements in mind, we defined the term 

PBCS so that it would give applicants 

flexibility in designing a PBCS that has 

features that meet the minimum 

statutory requirements (see Chart 1) and 

identifies additional features that could 

be (but are not required to be) 

implemented as part of a PBCS (see 

Chart 2). 

CHART 1—PBCS DESIGN OPTIONS TO MEET STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

Design model Mandatory elements 

1 * ..........................................................

* Corresponds to paragraph (a)(1) of 

the PBCS definition.

Proposed PBCS provides both of the following: 

(1) Additional compensation for teachers and principals who receive an overall rating of effective or 

higher under the evaluation systems described in the application. 

(2) Of those teachers and principals eligible for compensation under paragraph (1), additional compensation for teachers and, at the applicant’s discretion, for principals, who take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles (as defined in this notice). 

2 * ..........................................................

* Corresponds to paragraph (a)(2) of 

the PBCS definition.

Proposed PBCS provides both of the following: 

(1) Additional compensation for teachers who receive an overall rating of effective or higher under 

the evaluation system described in the application and who take on career ladder positions (as 

defined in this notice). 

(2) Additional compensation for one or both of the following: 

(A) Principals who receive an overall rating of effective or higher under the evaluation system 

described in the application, or 

(B) Principals who receive an overall rating of effective or higher under the evaluation system 

described in the application and who take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles 

(as defined in this notice). 

Regardless of whether an applicant 

chooses to design its PBCS under Model 

1 or Model 2, as described in Chart 1, 

it may also include, as part of its PBCS 

the following: 

CHART 2—PBCS OPTIONAL FEATURES

Optional elements 

Compensation for Transfers 

to High-Need Schools.

Proposed PBCS provides compensation for educators (which at the applicant’s option may be for teachers or 

principals or both) who receive an overall rating of effective or higher under the evaluation systems described 

in the application or under comparable evaluation systems in another LEA, and who either: 

(1) Transfer to a high-need school from a school of the LEA that is not high-need, or 

(2) For educators who previously worked in another LEA, are hired to work in a high-need school. 

Compensation for Other Personnel.Proposed PBCS provides compensation for other personnel, who are not teachers or principals, based on performance standards established by the LEA so long as those standards, in significant part, include student 

growth, which may be school-level student growth. 

Requirement: Each applicant must 

describe, in its application, how its 

proposed PBCS will meet the definition 

of a PBCS set forth in this notice. 

Note: To ensure that the funded 

applications reflect a diversity of PBCSs, the 

Secretary reserves the right to fund a 

sufficient number of high-quality Design 

Model 1 and Design Model 2 projects. 

Proposed Requirement 2—Involvement 

and Support of Teachers and Principals 

Background: The TIF authorizing 

statute requires the input of teachers 

and principals in the schools and LEAs 

to be served by the grant in the 

development of the PBCS. Consistent 

with this statutory requirement, we 

propose to require each applicant to 

include in its application evidence of 

the involvement of educators in the 

participating LEAs in the design of the 

PBCS, as well as in the design of the 

underlying evaluation systems that 

inform the PBCS. Further, under this 

requirement, an applicant would need 

to include in its application evidence 

demonstrating how educators in the 

participating LEAs will be involved on 

an ongoing basis with the 

implementation of the PBCS and the 

evaluation systems. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 29, 2012 / Notices 12265 

We propose this requirement because 

we believe that ongoing involvement by 

educators in the development and 

implementation of the PBCS and 

evaluation systems is critical to the 

success and sustainability of a PBCS 

and that educators are more likely to 

have confidence in these reforms, and 

embrace them, if they have had a role 

in developing and implementing them. 

As proposed, an applicant would 

have discretion in the evidence it 

submits to demonstrate that it has met 

this requirement. To demonstrate 

involvement by educators in the design 

of its PBCS, for example, an applicant 

might describe the design committee 

and how educators were represented on 

the committee. To demonstrate on-going 

involvement of educators in the 

proposed project, an applicant might 

describe the organizational structures 

that it will put in place to ensure that 

educators are routinely involved in 

decisions regarding the implementation 

of the PBCS and evaluation systems. 

Because expressions of educator support 

are another demonstration of educator 

involvement, we would encourage 

applicants to submit letters of support 

for their proposed PBCS from educators 

and educator organizations. To help us 

evaluate the quality of the evidence 

submitted, we are proposing that an 

applicant indicate in its application 

whether a union is the exclusive 

representative of either teachers or 

principals in each participating LEA. 

Requirement: In its application, the 

applicant must include— 

(a) Evidence that educators in each 

participating LEA have been involved, 

and will continue to be involved, in the 

development and implementation of the 

PBCS and evaluation systems described 

in the application; 

(b) A description of the extent to 

which the applicant has educator 

support for the proposed PBCS and 

educator evaluation systems; and 

(c) A statement indicating whether a 

union is the exclusive representative of 

either teachers or principals in each 

participating LEA. 

Proposed Requirement 3— 

Documentation of High-Need Schools 

Background: Consistent with the 

statutory requirement that all staff 

participating in the PBCS work in 

schools that are high-need, we propose 

to require each applicant to 

demonstrate, in its application, that it 

will implement the proposed PBCS 

component of its HCMS in high-need 

schools. This requirement would 

specify that an applicant must identify 

the schools in which the PBCS would be 

implemented. For any high-poverty 

school identified, the applicant must 

provide school-level data demonstrating 

that each school to be served by the 

PBCS is a high-need school. We would 

require school-level data for highpoverty schools, as opposed to LEAlevel data, because the TIF authorizing 

statute requires that the school—rather 

than the LEA—be high-need. 

In this notice, we propose to expand 

the definition of high-need school that 

was used in the previous TIF 

competitions to include schools 

identified as in need of improvement 

under other Department programs. With 

this change, it is our intent to help LEAs 

integrate their TIF project with other 

activities supported by other 

Department programs such as the 

School Improvement Fund, Race to the 

Top, and ESEA flexibility. 

Requirement: Each applicant must 

demonstrate, in its application, that the 

schools participating in the 

implementation of the TIF-funded PBCS 

are high-need schools (as defined in this 

notice), including high-poverty schools 

(as defined in this notice), priority 

schools (as defined in this notice), or 

persistently lowest-achieving schools 

(as defined in this notice). Each 

applicant must provide, in its 

application— 

(a) A list of high-need schools in 

which the proposed PBCS would be 

implemented; and 

(b) For each high-poverty school 

listed, the most current data on the 

percentage of students who are eligible 

for free or reduced-price lunch subsidies 

under the Richard B. Russell National 

School Lunch Act or are considered 

students from low-income families 

based on another poverty measure that 

the LEA uses (see section 1113(a)(5) of 

the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6313(a)(5))). Data 

provided to demonstrate eligibility as a 

high-poverty school must be schoollevel data; the Department will not 

accept LEA- or State-level data for 

purposes of documenting whether a 

school is a high-poverty school. 

(c) For any priority schools listed, 

documentation verifying that the State 

has received approval of a request for 

ESEA flexibility, and that the schools 

have been identified by the State as 

priority schools. 

Proposed Requirement 4—SEA and 

Other Group Applications 

Background: We propose to require an 

SEA applicant to apply with one or 

more LEAs that would implement the 

PBCS, evaluation systems, and HCMS 

proposed in its application. This 

proposed requirement would ensure 

that any SEA applying for a TIF grant 

has obtained the full commitment of 

each LEA that will be responsible for 

developing and implementing the 

HCMS, including the educator 

evaluation systems and the PBCS, 

described in the application. 

Similarly, we propose to require any 

SEA or other applicant that proposes to 

work with one or more additional 

entities to implement the HCMS 

(including the educator evaluation 

systems and the PBCS) described in the 

application to submit, with the 

application, a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) or other binding 

agreement that describes the activities 

each entity proposes to undertake and 

that conforms to 34 CFR 75.128 and 

75.129. In each of these ‘‘groupapplication’’ situations, each entity 

would be considered a grantee—with 

the application designating the lead 

applicant. This proposed requirement 

would clearly apply to a non-profit 

applicant that, by statute, must apply in 

partnership with one or more LEAs or 

SEAs, as well as to an SEA applicant 

that would need to apply with one or 

more LEAs, and in other circumstances 

where a project would involve multiple 

LEAs, SEAs, or non-profit organizations 

(e.g., an application from two or more 

LEAs). The MOU or other binding 

agreement would not only satisfy the 

group application requirements in 34 

CFR 75.128 and 75.129, but it would 

also ensure that an applicant has 

consulted with the entities with which 

it proposes to collaborate, as 

appropriate, to clarify the entities’ 

respective responsibilities. 

We expect to include, in the 

application package for the FY 2012 TIF 

grant competition, a sample MOU. 

Although an applicant would not be 

required to use this sample MOU, and 

the sample may be modified as needed, 

the sample MOU would be one way to 

address this proposed requirement. 

Requirement 

(a) Applications from the following 

are group applications: 

(1) Any application from two or more 

LEAs. 

(2) Any application that includes one 

or more SEAs. 

(3) Any application that includes a 

nonprofit organization. 

(b) An applicant that is a non-profit 

organization must apply in a 

partnership that includes one or more 

LEAs, and must identify in the 

application the LEA(s) and any SEA(s) 

with which the proposed project would 

be implemented. 

(c) An applicant that is an SEA must 

apply for a grant under this program as 

part of a group application that includes 

one or more LEAs in the same State as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12266 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 29, 2012 / Notices 

the SEA, and must identify in the 

application the LEA(s) in which the 

project would be implemented. 

(d) All group applications must 

include a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) or other binding 

agreement signed by all of the members 

of the group. At a minimum, the MOU 

or other agreement must include— 

(1) A commitment by each 

participating LEA to implement the 

HCMS, including the educator 

evaluation systems and the PBCS, 

described in the application; 

(2) An identification of the lead 

applicant; 

(3) A description of the 

responsibilities of the lead applicant in 

managing any grant funds and ensuring 

overall implementation of the proposed 

project as described in the application if 

approved by the Department; 

(4) A description of the activities that 

each member of the group will perform; 

and 

(5) A statement binding each member 

of the group to every statement and 

assurance made in the application. 

(e) In any group application identified 

in paragraph (a) of this Requirement, 

each entity in the group is considered a 

grantee. 

Proposed Requirement 5—Submitting 

an Application for One Competition 

Background: If the Assistant Secretary 

designates proposed Priority 3 as an 

absolute priority in a competition in 

fiscal year (FY) 2012 or later years, the 

Assistant Secretary may conduct a 

separate competition for TIF funds with 

additional selection criteria related to 

the plan described under Priority 3 

relating to STEM (TIF Competition with 

a Focus on STEM). Under this proposed 

requirement, applicants could apply for 

either the TIF Competition with a Focus 

on STEM or a general competition 

(General TIF Competition), but not both. 

We propose this requirement to ensure 

that applicants develop proposals that 

are of high quality under the 

competition to which the applicant 

chooses to apply. 

Requirement: An applicant may 

submit an application for the General 

TIF Competition or the TIF Competition 

with a Focus on STEM, but may not 

submit an application for both. 

Proposed Requirement 6—Use of TIF 

Funds To Support the PBCS 

Background: Through this 

requirement, we propose a very flexible 

approach to the use of TIF funds for 

building the basic infrastructure that is 

necessary to make a PBCS successful 

and sustainable. At the same time, we 

propose to restrict how TIF funds can be 

used to compensate educators. We 

believe this approach will effectively 

balance the need for flexibility, so that 

a grantee can make its PBCS successful, 

with the need to ensure that PBCSs 

achieve the program’s purpose of 

attracting, retaining, and promoting 

effective educators in high-need 

schools. 

The TIF program’s authorizing statute 

provides that TIF funds may be used to 

develop or improve systems and tools 

that will benefit the entire LEA. Thus, 

TIF funds may be used to support the 

costs of these systems and tools that are 

incurred by a participating LEA (or by 

an SEA or non-profit organization that 

has applied with one or more LEAs) so 

long as the costs are for systems and 

tools that will benefit the participating 

LEA’s PBCS. Examples of these costs 

include the costs of developing or 

improving high-quality teacher 

evaluations and tools to measure growth 

in student achievement. TIF funds 

could also be used to enhance or 

develop the data systems that will be 

critical both for measuring student 

growth and for collating the educator 

evaluation information needed to 

identify school and educator needs. 

While TIF funds may support the 

costs of developing and improving 

systems and tools for the entire LEA in 

which the TIF-funded PBCS is 

implemented, they may not be used to 

implement the PBCS (e.g., to pay the 

costs of the performance-based 

compensation awards to teachers, 

principals, or other personnel) in 

schools that are not high-need schools. 

An LEA would have to use non-TIF 

funds to support any proposed 

performance-based compensation in its 

schools that are not high-need. 

Similarly, in high-need schools, TIF 

funds could support the costs of 

providing evaluation-driven 

professional development, but non-TIF 

funds would be needed to provide any 

such professional development in nonhigh-need schools. 

Finally, under this proposed 

requirement, a grantee could use TIF 

funds to provide additional 

compensation for effective educators in 

high-need schools through its PBCS, but 

it could not use TIF funds to 

compensate educators for activities that 

have little or no connection to 

recognizing, rewarding, and supporting 

effective teaching and leading. 

Based on our experience with current 

TIF projects, we believe that it is 

appropriate to define the circumstances 

under which LEAs can use TIF funds to 

compensate educators. TIF funds would 

only be used to compensate educators 

based on the educator’s demonstration 

of effectiveness under the evaluation 

systems included in the application. For 

example, we do not believe it is 

appropriate to use TIF funds to 

compensate teachers for their 

attendance or for their willingness to 

sponsor a student club. By themselves, 

these activities do not systemically 

support teacher effectiveness and are 

not, therefore, additional 

responsibilities and leadership roles as 

defined in this notice. 

For these reasons, we propose to 

clarify the circumstances under which 

TIF funds can be used to support 

compensation for educators in highneed schools. TIF funds can only be 

used to support compensation for 

educators in high-need schools as part 

of an LEA’s PBCS, as described in the 

application. 

We also request public comment on 

whether this requirement should limit 

the amount of TIF funds that can be 

used to compensate effective teachers or 

principals who agree to take on 

additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles in high-need schools. 

As discussed under Proposed 

Requirement 1, we are proposing that a 

grantee must provide performancebased compensation to effective 

teachers who agree to take on additional 

responsibilities and leadership roles in 

high-need schools. These teachers could 

be school-based instructional leaders in 

career ladder positions (such as master 

teacher or academic instructional coach 

positions) or they could be teachers who 

take on additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles, such as, for example, 

conducting peer evaluations. In 

addition, under proposed Requirement 

1, a grantee may choose, at its 

discretion, to provide performancebased compensation to principals who 

take on additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles. 

Given the limited amount of TIF 

funding that will be available for new 

awards, we specifically request 

comment on what limitations, if any, 

the Department should establish on the 

amount of TIF funds that a grantee 

could use to support the costs of 

teachers and principals taking on these 

additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles including, career ladder 

positions. For example: 

• Should a grantee be able to use TIF 

funds for the entire amount of salary for 

career ladder positions, or should TIF 

funds only pay for a salary 

augmentation (i.e., an additional 

amount of compensation over and above 

what the LEA would otherwise pay the 

effective teacher)? 

• Should there be a limit on the 

number of effective teachers or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 29, 2012 / Notices 12267 

principals who take on additional 

responsibilities and leadership roles 

under the PBCS for whom TIF would 

support the salary or salary 

augmentation costs? 

When finalizing this requirement, we 

will take into consideration the public 

comments we receive regarding 

limitations on the use of TIF funds for 

the costs of salaries for those effective 

teachers and principals who take on 

additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles in high-need schools. 

Requirement: TIF funds may be used 

to develop and improve systems and 

tools that support the PBCS and benefit 

the entire LEA. TIF funds may also be 

used to provide performance-based 

compensation and professional 

development in high-need schools. TIF 

funds may not be used to provide 

performance-based compensation or 

professional development in schools 

that are not high-need schools. 

TIF funds may be used to compensate 

educators only when the compensation 

is provided as part of the LEA’s PBCS, 

as described in the application. 

This requirement does not preclude 

the use of TIF funds to compensate 

educators who are hired by a grantee to 

administer or implement the TIFsupported PBCS, or to develop or 

improve systems and tools needed to 

support the PBCS. 

Proposed Requirement 7—Limitation 

on Using TIF Funds in High-Need 

Schools Served by Existing TIF Grants 

Background: Through this proposed 

requirement, we would prohibit a 

grantee from using TIF funds for 

performance-based compensation and 

evaluation-linked professional 

development in high-need schools that, 

as of the beginning of the grant’s project 

period, are already being served (or are 

to be served) by a TIF grant. We propose 

this requirement because we believe 

that the projects currently funded under 

the TIF program should successfully 

complete the activities described in 

their existing approved applications. 

Requirement: Each applicant must 

provide an assurance, in its application, 

that, if successful under this 

competition, it will use the grant award 

to implement the proposed PBCS and 

professional development only in highneed schools that are not served, as of 

the beginning of the grant’s project 

period or as planned in the future, by an 

existing TIF grant. 

Proposed Definitions 

Background 

We propose the following definitions 

of the terms additional responsibilities 

and leadership roles, career ladder 

positions, educators, high-need school, 

human capital management system, 

other personnel, performance-based 

compensation system, principal, student 

growth, teacher, and vision of 

instructional improvement for use in the 

TIF program. 

Two of the terms proposed to be 

defined here—high-need school and 

student growth—are virtually the same 

as the definitions we adopted for these 

terms in the FY 2010 TIF notice of final 

priorities, requirements, definitions and 

selection criteria. The student growth 

definition is also substantively identical 

to the definition of that term used in the 

ESEA Flexibility initiative (see http:// 

www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility). We are 

defining these terms as we did in other 

Department programs for consistency 

and to avoid confusion. 

We also are proposing to define some 

terms that were used but not defined in 

our FY 2010 TIF notice of final 

priorities, requirements, definitions and 

selection criteria, and some new terms 

used for the first time in this notice, 

because a clear definition for each of 

these terms will avoid confusion among 

applicants regarding the types of 

projects that we intend to fund under 

these proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

The proposed definition of a 

performance-based compensation 

system (PBCS) clarifies that any 

performance-based compensation must 

be based on the evaluation systems 

described in the application, rather than 

on evaluation criteria established for the 

PBCS alone. This definition also 

clarifies that a PBCS must compensate 

educators who are deemed effective 

(while also compensating effective 

teachers who take on additional 

responsibilities and leadership roles) or 

it must compensate teachers who are 

deemed effective and take on career 

ladder positions (while also 

compensating principals who are 

deemed effective). Under the proposed 

definition, a grantee has discretion to 

award compensation in other specified 

circumstances. 

We define the term additional 

responsibilities and leadership roles 

differently for teachers, on the one 

hand, and principals, on the other. For 

teachers, we define the term to ensure 

that TIF funds are used to support 

activities that are likely to improve 

instruction or instructional leadership 

in a systemic way. While the term is 

broadly-defined for principals, the 

related definition of PBCS clarifies that 

additional compensation for effective 

principals who take on additional 

responsibilities and leadership roles is 

an optional component of any PBCS. 

Similarly, the PBCS definition clarifies 

that educators who take on additional 

responsibilities and leadership roles 

(including career ladder positions) 

would first have to demonstrate their 

effectiveness under the evaluation 

systems described in the application. 

The definition of human capital 

management system (HCMS) recognizes 

that an HCMS is a system in which an 

LEA makes decisions regarding its 

workforce. This proposed definition is 

based on the premise that all LEAs have 

some sort of system they use to make 

human capital management decisions. 

While the characteristics or structure of 

an HCMS can vary dramatically across 

LEAs, we view human capital 

management decision-making as part of 

a system. 

Similarly, we define vision of 

instructional improvement to mean an 

LEA’s summary of the competencies 

and behaviors required for effective 

teaching, as well as how educators 

acquire or improve these competencies 

and behaviors. The proposed definition 

is intended to help applicants and 

grantees base their TIF-funded projects 

on a deep understanding of effective 

teaching. 

Finally, we propose to define the 

terms educators, other personnel, 

principal, and teacher in an effort to 

clarify the distinctions among these 

roles. 

Definitions 

We propose the following definitions 

for this program. We may apply one or 

more of these definitions in any year in 

which this program is in effect. 

Additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles means: 

(a) In the case of teachers, meaningful 

school-based responsibilities that 

teachers may voluntarily accept to 

strengthen instruction or instructional 

leadership in a systemic way, such as 

additional responsibilities related to 

lesson study, professional development, 

and peer evaluation, and may also 

include career ladder positions. 

(b) In the case of principals, 

additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles that principals may 

voluntarily accept, such as a position in 

which an effective principal coaches a 

novice principal. 

Career ladder positions means schoolbased instructional leadership positions 

designed to improve instructional 

practice, which teachers may 

voluntarily accept, such as positions 

described as master teacher, mentor 

teacher, demonstration or model 

teacher, or instructional coach, and for 

which teachers are selected based on 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12268 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 29, 2012 / Notices 

criteria that are predictive of the ability 

to lead other teachers. 

Educators means teachers and 

principals. 

High-need school means: 

(a) A high-poverty school, or 

(b) A persistently lowest-achieving 

school, or 

(c) In the case of States that have 

received the Department’s approval of a 

request for ESEA flexibility, a priority 

school. 

High-poverty school means a school 

with 50 percent or more of its 

enrollment from low-income families, 

based on eligibility for free or reducedprice lunch subsidies under the Richard 

B. Russell National School Lunch Act, 

or other poverty measures that LEAs use 

(see section 1113(a)(5) of the ESEA (20 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(5)). For middle and high 

schools, eligibility may be calculated on 

the basis of comparable data from feeder 

schools. Eligibility as a high-poverty 

school under this definition is 

determined on the basis of the most 

currently available data. 

A human capital management system 

(HCMS) is a system by which an LEA 

makes and implements human capital 

decisions, such as decisions on 

recruitment, hiring, placement, 

retention, dismissal, compensation, 

professional development, tenure, and 

promotion. 

Other personnel are school-based 

personnel who are not serving in a 

teacher or principal position. Other 

personnel may include, for example, 

school counselors, media specialists, or 

para-educators. 

Persistently lowest-achieving school 

means, as determined by the State: 

(i) Any Title I school in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring that— 

(a) Is among the lowest-achieving five 

percent of Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring or the lowest-achieving 

five Title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring in the 

State, whichever number of schools is 

greater; or 

(b) Is a high school that has had a 

graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 

200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent 

over a number of years; and 

(ii) Any secondary school that is 

eligible for, but does not receive, Title 

I funds that— 

(a) Is among the lowest-achieving five 

percent of secondary schools or the 

lowest-achieving five secondary schools 

in the State that are eligible for, but do 

not receive, Title I funds, whichever 

number of schools is greater; or 

(b) Is a high school that has had a 

graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 

200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent 

over a number of years. 

To identify the persistently lowestachieving schools, a State must take into 

account both: 

(i) The academic achievement of the 

‘‘all students’’ group in a school in 

terms of proficiency on the State’s 

assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of 

the ESEA in reading/language arts and 

mathematics combined; and 

(ii) The school’s lack of progress on 

those assessments over a number of 

years in the ‘‘all students’’ group. 

Performance-based compensation 

system (PBCS) means a system that— 

(a) Provides additional compensation 

for teachers and principals in one of the 

following circumstances— 

(1)(i) Design Model 1. Additional 

compensation for teachers and 

principals who receive an overall 

evaluation rating of effective or higher 

under the evaluation systems described 

in the application; and 

(ii) Of those teachers and principals 

eligible for compensation under 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this definition, 

additional compensation for teachers 

and, at the applicant’s discretion, for 

principals, who take on additional 

responsibilities and leadership roles; or 

(2)(i) Design Model 2. Additional 

compensation for teachers who receive 

an overall evaluation rating of effective 

or higher under the evaluation system 

described in the application and who 

take on career ladder positions; and 

(ii) Additional compensation for (A) 

principals who receive an overall 

evaluation rating of effective or higher 

under the evaluation system described 

in the application, or (B) principals who 

receive an overall evaluation rating of 

effective or higher under the evaluation 

system described in the application and 

who take on additional responsibilities 

and leadership roles. 

(b) May provide the following 

compensation: 

(1) Compensation for educators 

(which at the applicant’s option may be 

for teachers or principals or both) who 

receive an overall evaluation rating of 

effective or higher under the evaluation 

systems described in the application or 

under comparable evaluation systems in 

another LEA, and who either: (i) transfer 

to a high-need school from a school of 

the LEA that is not high-need, or, (ii) for 

educators who previously worked in 

another LEA, are hired to work in a 

high-need school. 

(2) Compensation for other personnel, 

who are not teachers or principals, 

based on performance standards 

established by the LEA so long as those 

standards, in significant part, include 

student growth, which may be schoollevel student growth. 

A principal is any person who meets 

the definition of that term under State 

or local law. At an LEA’s discretion, it 

may also include an assistant or vice 

principal or a person in a position that 

contributes to the organizational 

management or instructional leadership 

of a school. 

Priority school means a school that 

has been identified by the State as a 

priority school pursuant to the State’s 

approved request for Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 

flexibility. 

Student growth means the change in 

student achievement for an individual 

student between two or more points in 

time. For the purpose of this definition, 

student achievement means— 

(a) For grades and subjects in which 

assessments are required under section 

1111(b)(3) of ESEA: (1) a student’s score 

on such assessments and may include 

(2) other measures of student learning, 

such as those described in paragraph (b) 

of this definition, provided those 

measures are rigorous and comparable 

across schools within an LEA. 

(b) For grades and subjects in which 

assessments are not required under 

section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA: Alternative 

measures of student learning and 

performance such as student results on 

pre-tests, end-of-course tests, and 

objective performance-based 

assessments; student learning 

objectives; student performance on 

English language proficiency 

assessments; and other measures of 

student achievement that are rigorous 

and comparable across schools within 

an LEA. 

A teacher is any person who meets 

the definition of that term under State 

or local law. 

A vision of instructional improvement 

is a summary of the key competencies 

and behaviors of effective teaching that 

an LEA views as necessary to produce 

high levels of student achievement, as 

well as how educators acquire or 

improve these competencies and 

behaviors. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

This notice contains two sets of 

proposed selection criteria. The first set 

proposes selection criteria that would be 

used, in whole or in part, in any year 

in which we conduct a General TIF 

Competition. The second set would be 

used, in whole or in part, together with 

one or more of the General TIF 

Competition selection criteria, in any 

year in which we conduct a TIF 

Competition with a Focus on STEM. For 

FY 2012, the Department intends to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 29, 2012 / Notices 12269 

conduct two competitions—a General 

TIF Competition and a TIF Competition 

with a Focus on STEM. 

Background 

General TIF Competition Selection 

Criteria: We propose the General TIF 

Competition Selection Criteria 

(proposed selection criteria (a) through 

(f)) to be used to review an applicant’s 

proposal for funding under any FY 2012 

competition and any future 

competitions. We believe that these 

proposed selection criteria would be 

helpful in ensuring that an applicant 

selected for funding has or will have: (1) 

An HCMS that enhances the quality and 

sustainability of its PBCS and advances 

an LEA’s vision of instructional 

improvement; (2) a well-designed PBCS 

that uses reliable teacher and principal 

evaluations to identify, compensate, and 

promote effective staff in high-need 

schools; (3) a professional development 

plan to help all educators in high-need 

schools that are part of the PBCS 

become effective; (4) extensive teacher 

and principal involvement in the 

development and implementation of the 

proposed educator evaluation systems 

and PBCS; (5) a management plan 

(including a plan for an effective project 

evaluation) that is adequate to support 

the development and implementation of 

the proposed project; and (6) a 

sustainability plan to ensure the longerterm viability of the proposed project. 

TIF Competition With a Focus on STEM 

Selection Criteria 

We propose an additional selection 

criterion, selection criterion (g), that 

would be used, in whole or in part, in 

addition to one or more of the General 

TIF Competition selection criteria for 

any TIF Competition with a Focus on 

STEM the Department conducts. This 

selection criterion focuses on 

comprehensive approaches to 

improving STEM instruction. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

We propose the following selection 

criteria for evaluating an application 

under this program. We may apply one 

or more of these criteria; the general 

selection criteria in the Education 

Department General Administrative 

Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR 75.210; 

criteria based on statutory provisions in 

accordance with 34 CFR 75.209; or any 

combination thereof in any year in 

which there is a TIF competition. In the 

notice inviting applications, or the 

application package, or both, we will 

announce the maximum possible points 

assigned to each criterion. 

(a) A Coherent and Comprehensive 

Human Capital Management System 

(HCMS). We will consider the quality 

and comprehensiveness of each 

participating LEA’s HCMS as described 

in the application. In determining the 

quality of the HCMS, as it currently 

exists and as the applicant proposes to 

modify it during the grant period, we 

will consider the extent to which the 

HCMS described in the application is— 

(1) Aligned with each participating 

LEA’s clearly described vision of 

instructional improvement; and 

(2) Likely to increase the number of 

effective educators in the LEA’s schools, 

especially in high-need schools, as 

demonstrated by— 

(i) The weight given to educator 

effectiveness—based on the educator 

evaluation systems described in the 

application—when human capital 

decisions are made; 

(ii) The range of human capital 

decisions for which the applicant 

proposes to factor in educator 

effectiveness—based on the educator 

evaluation systems described in the 

application. 

(iii) The feasibility of the HCMS 

described in the application, including 

the extent to which the LEA has prior 

experience using information from the 

educator evaluation systems described 

in the application to inform human 

capital decisions; 

(iv) The commitment of the LEA 

leadership to implementing the 

described HCMS, including all of its 

component parts; and 

(v) The adequacy of the financial and 

nonfinancial strategies and incentives, 

including the proposed PBCS, for 

attracting effective educators to work in 

high-need schools and retaining them in 

those schools. 

(b) Rigorous, Valid, and Reliable 

Educator Evaluation Systems. We will 

consider, for each participating LEA, the 

quality of the educator evaluation 

systems described in the application. In 

determining the quality of each 

evaluation system, we will consider the 

extent to which— 

(1) Each participating LEA has 

finalized a high-quality evaluation 

rubric, with at least three performance 

levels (e.g., highly effective, effective, 

developing, unsatisfactory), under 

which educators will be evaluated; 

(2) Each participating LEA has 

presented: 

(i) A clear rationale to support its 

approach to differentiating performance 

levels based on the level of student 

growth achieved; and 

(ii) Evidence, such as current research 

and best practices, supporting the LEA’s 

choice of student growth model or 

models; 

(3) Each participating LEA has made 

substantial progress in developing a 

high-quality plan for multiple teacher 

and principal observations, including 

identification of the persons, by position 

and qualifications, who will be 

conducting the observations, the 

observation tool, the events to be 

observed, the accuracy of raters in using 

observation tools and the procedures for 

ensuring a high degree of inter-rater 

reliability; 

(4) The participating LEA has 

experience measuring student growth at 

the classroom level, and has already 

implemented components of the 

proposed educator evaluation systems; 

(5) In the case of teacher evaluations, 

the proposed evaluation system— 

(i) Bases the overall evaluation rating 

for teachers, in significant part, on 

student growth; 

(ii) Evaluates the practice of teachers, 

including general education teachers 

and teachers of special student 

populations, in meeting the needs of 

special student populations, including 

students with disabilities and English 

learners; 

(6) In the case of principal 

evaluations, the proposed evaluation 

system— 

(i) Bases the overall evaluation rating 

on, in significant part, student growth; 

and 

(ii) Evaluates, among other factors, a 

principal’s practice in— 

(A) Focusing every teacher, and the 

school community generally, on student 

growth; 

(B) Establishing a collaborative school 

culture focused on continuous 

improvement; and 

(C) Supporting the academic needs of 

special student populations, including 

students with disabilities and English 

learners, for example, by creating 

systems to support successful coteaching practices, providing resources 

for research-based intervention services, 

or similar activities. 

(c) Professional Development Systems 

to Support the Needs of Teachers and 

Principals Identified Through the 

Evaluation Process. We will consider 

the extent to which each participating 

LEA has a high-quality plan for 

professional development to help all 

educators in high-need schools served 

by the PBCS improve their effectiveness. 

In determining the quality of this plan 

for professional development, we will 

consider the extent to which each 

participating LEA describes a highquality plan to— 

(1) Use the disaggregated information 

generated by the proposed educator 

evaluation systems to identify the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12270 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 29, 2012 / Notices 

professional development needs of 

individual educators and schools; 

(2) Provide professional development 

in a timely way; and 

(3) Provide professional development 

that is likely to improve instructional 

and leadership practices, and is guided 

by the professional development needs 

of individual educators as identified in 

(1). 

(d) Involvement of Educators. We will 

consider the quality of educator 

involvement in the development and 

implementation of the proposed PBCS 

and educator evaluation systems 

described in the application. In 

determining the quality of such 

involvement, we will consider the 

extent to which— 

(1) The application contains evidence 

that educator involvement in the design 

of the PBCS and the educator evaluation 

systems has been extensive and will 

continue to be extensive during the 

grant period; and 

(2) The application contains evidence 

that educators support the elements of 

the proposed PBCS and the educator 

evaluation systems described in the 

application. 

(e) Project Management. We will 

consider the quality of the management 

plan of the proposed project. In 

determining the quality of the 

management plan, we will consider the 

extent to which the management plan— 

(1) Clearly identifies and defines the 

roles and responsibilities of key 

personnel; 

(2) Allocates sufficient human 

resources to complete project tasks; 

(3) Includes measurable project 

objectives and performance measures; 

and 

(4) Includes an effective project 

evaluation plan; 

(5) Specifies realistic and achievable 

timelines for: 

(i) Implementing the components of 

the HCMS, PBCS, and educator 

evaluation systems, including any 

proposal to phase in schools or 

educators. 

(ii) Successfully completing project 

tasks and achieving objectives. 

(f) Sustainability. We will consider 

the quality of the plan to sustain the 

proposed project. In determining the 

quality of the sustainability plan, we 

will consider the extent to which the 

sustainability plan— 

(1) Identifies and commits sufficient 

non-TIF resources, financial and nonfinancial, to support the PBCS and 

educator evaluation systems during and 

after the grant period; and 

(2) Is likely to be implemented and, if 

implemented, will result in a sustained 

PBCS and educator evaluation systems 

after the grant period ends. 

(g) Comprehensive Approach to 

Improving STEM Instruction. To meet 

Priority 3, we will consider the quality 

of an applicant’s plan for improving 

educator effectiveness in STEM 

instruction. In determining the quality 

of the plan, we will consider the extent 

to which— 

(1) The financial and nonfinancial 

strategies and incentives, including the 

proposed PBCS, are adequate for 

attracting effective STEM educators to 

work in high-need schools and retaining 

them in these schools; 

(2) The proposed professional 

development opportunities— 

(a) Will provide college-level STEM 

skills and content knowledge to STEM 

teachers while modeling for teachers 

pedagogical methods for teaching those 

skills and that content at the appropriate 

grade level; and 

(b) Will enable STEM teachers to 

provide students in high-need schools 

with increased access to rigorous and 

engaging STEM coursework appropriate 

for their grade level, including collegelevel material in high schools; 

(3) The applicant will significantly 

leverage STEM-related funds across 

other Federal, State, and local programs 

to implement a high-quality and 

comprehensive STEM plan; and 

(4) The applicant provides evidence 

(e.g., letters of support) that the LEA has 

or will develop extensive relationships 

with STEM experts and resources in 

industry, academic institutions, or 

associations to effectively implement its 

STEM plan and ensure that instruction 

prepares students to be college-andcareer ready. 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definition, and Selection Criteria 

The Secretary will announce the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria in a notice in the 

Federal Register. The Secretary will 

determine the final priorities, 

requirements, definition, and selection 

criteria after considering responses to 

this notice and other information 

available to the Department. This notice 

does not preclude us from proposing 

additional priorities, requirements, 

definitions, or selection criteria, subject 

to meeting applicable rulemaking 

requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use these proposed priorities, 

requirements, definition, and selection 

criteria, we invite applications through a 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and 

therefore subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or tribal governments, or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

This regulatory will have an annual 

effect on the economy of more than 

$100 million because the amount of 

government transfers provided through 

the TIF program will exceed that 

amount. Therefore, this action is 

‘‘economically significant’’ and subject 

to OMB review under section 3(f)(1) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Notwithstanding this determination, we 

have assessed the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this regulatory action 

and have determined that the benefits 

justify the costs. 

We have also reviewed these 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria under 

Executive Order 13563, which 

supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 

principles, structures, and definitions 

governing regulatory review established 

in Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

on a reasoned determination that their 

benefits justify their costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 29, 2012 / Notices 12271 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are proposing the priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in this notice only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that these proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are consistent with the 

principles in Executive Order 13563. 

In this regulatory impact analysis we 

discuss the need for regulatory action, 

the potential costs and benefits, net 

budget impacts, assumptions, 

limitations, and data sources, as well as 

regulatory alternatives we considered. 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action 

The proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are needed to implement the TIF 

program. The Secretary does not believe 

that the authorizing legislation for this 

program, by itself, provides a sufficient 

level of detail to ensure that the program 

achieves the greatest national impact in 

promoting the development and 

implementation of PBCSs. The 

authorizing and appropriations language 

is very brief and provides only broad 

parameters to govern the program. The 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria proposed in this notice 

would clarify the types of activities the 

Department seeks to fund, and permit 

the Department to evaluate proposed 

projects using selection criteria that are 

based on the purpose of the program 

and are closely aligned with the 

Secretary’s priorities. 

In the absence of specific selection 

criteria for the TIF program, the 

Department would use the general 

selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 of 

the Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations in selecting 

grant recipients. However, the Secretary 

does not believe the use of those general 

criteria would be appropriate for a TIF 

program competition because they do 

not focus on the development of PBCSs 

or activities most likely to increase the 

quality of teaching and school 

administration and improve educational 

outcomes for students. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

The Department considered a variety 

of possible priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria before 

deciding to propose those included in 

this notice. For example, the 

Department considered— 

(1) Limiting eligible LEA applicants to 

those that already have in place the 

basic infrastructure necessary to 

generate student growth data at the 

classroom level. However, we took an 

alternative approach because we 

recognize that one purpose of the TIF 

program is to nurture innovation and 

reform in LEAs that may be beginning 

their reform efforts in this area. 

(2) Requiring an applicant to commit 

a certain percentage of non-TIF funds to 

the project in order to help ensure the 

project’s sustainability after the grant 

period. However, we took an alternative 

approach that requires the PBCS to be 

part of an LEA-wide HCMS because we 

believe that having the PBCS 

implemented as part of an LEA-wide 

HCMS will help generate project 

sustainability. Further, we believe that 

the proposed selection criteria that 

direct reviewers to assess the degree of 

LEA commitment, both financial and 

non-financial, and its effect on project 

sustainability, will be sufficient to 

ensure that funded projects are 

sustained after the end of the grant 

period. 

The proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria reflect and promote the purpose 

of the TIF program. They also align TIF, 

where possible and permissible, with 

other Presidential and Departmental 

priorities, such as the State Fiscal 

Stabilization Fund, the Race to the Top 

Fund, the School Improvement Grants 

program, and the ESEA Flexibility 

initiative. The proposals would also 

provide an eligible applicant with a 

great deal of flexibility in designing the 

systems and selecting the activities to 

carry out its proposed project. The 

Secretary believes that the proposals in 

this notice appropriately balance the 

need for specific programmatic 

guidance while providing each 

applicant with flexibility to design 

innovative and enduring PBCSs. We 

seek public comment on whether we 

have achieved an acceptable balance. 

Summary of Costs and Benefits 

The Secretary believes that the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

not impose significant costs on eligible 

States, LEAs, or nonprofit organizations 

that would receive assistance through 

the TIF program. The Secretary also 

believes that the benefits of 

implementing the proposals contained 

in this notice justify any associated 

costs. 

The Secretary believes that the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

result in selection of high-quality 

applications to implement activities that 

will improve the quality of teaching and 

educational administration. Through the 

regulatory action proposed in this 

notice, the Secretary seeks to clarify the 

scope of activities he expects to support 

with program funds and the expected 

burden to prepare an application and 

implement a project under the program. 

A potential applicant must consider 

carefully the resources needed to 

prepare a strong application and the 

applicant’s capacity to implement a 

successful project. 

The Secretary believes that the costs 

of complying with the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would be largely 

limited to the paperwork burden of 

preparing an application and that the 

benefits of implementing these 

proposals would outweigh any costs 

incurred by the applicant. This is 

because, during the project period, the 

applicant would pay the costs of 

actually carrying out activities under a 

TIF grant with program funds and any 

matching funds. Further, many of the 

systems that TIF funds will support, 

including educator evaluation systems 

and systems of professional 

development, are ones that LEAs 

regularly support with their own funds. 

Thus, the costs of implementing a TIF 

project using these proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria would be minimized for any 

eligible applicant, including a small 

entity. 

Elsewhere in this section under 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we 

identify and explain burdens 

specifically associated with information 

collection requirements. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12272 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 29, 2012 / Notices 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at http://www.Whithouse.gov/ 

omb/Circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the 

following table, we have prepared an 

accounting statement showing the 

classification of the expenditures 

associated with the provisions of this 

proposed regulatory action. This table 

provides our best estimate of the Federal 

payments to be made to States, LEAs, 

and nonprofit organizations under this 

program as a result of this proposed 

regulatory action. This table is based on 

funds available for new awards under 

the FY 2012 appropriation. 

Expenditures are classified as transfers 

to States, LEAs, and nonprofit 

organizations. 

Accounting Statement Classification 

of Estimated Expenditures: 

Category Transfers 

(in millions) 

Annual Monetized 

Transfers.

$284.5 

From Whom to Whom Federal Government 

to States, LEAs, 

and nonprofits. 

Effect on Other Levels of Government 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, or tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Department conducts a 

preclearance consultation program to 

provide the general public and Federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on proposed and continuing 

collections of information in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). 

This helps ensure that: the public 

understands the Department’s collection 

instructions, respondents can provide 

the requested data in the desired format, 

reporting burden (time and financial 

resources) is minimized, collection 

instruments are clearly understood, and 

the Department can properly assess the 

impact of collection requirements on 

respondents. 

We estimate that each applicant 

would spend approximately 248 hours 

of staff time to address the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, prepare the 

application, and obtain necessary 

clearances. Based on the number of 

applications the Department received in 

the FY 2010 competition, we expect to 

receive approximately 120 applications 

for these funds. The total number of 

hours for all expected applicants is an 

estimated 29,760 hours. We estimate the 

total cost per hour of the applicant-level 

staff who carry out this work to be $30 

per hour. The total estimated cost for all 

applicants would be $892,800. 

We have submitted an Information 

Collection Request (ICR) for this 

collection to OMB. If you want to 

comment on the proposed information 

collection requirements, please send 

your comments to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. 

Department of Education. Send these 

comments by email to OIRA_DOCKET@

omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202) 395– 

6974. You may also send a copy of these 

comments to the Department contact 

named in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this notice. 

In preparing your comments you may 

want to review the ICR, which we 

maintain in the Education Department 

Information Collection System (EDICS) 

at http://edicsweb.ed.gov. Click on 

Browse Pending Collections. This 

proposed collection is identified as 

proposed collection 1810–0700. This 

ICR is also available on OMB’s RegInfo 

Web site at www.reginfo.gov. 

We consider your comments on this 

proposed collection of information in— 

• Deciding whether the proposed 

collection is necessary for the proper 

performance of our functions, including 

whether the information will have 

practical use; 

• Evaluating the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection, including the validity of our 

methodology and assumptions; 

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, 

and clarity of the information we 

collect; and 

• Minimizing the burden on those 

who must respond. This includes 

exploring the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

contained in these proposed priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria 

between 30 and 60 days after 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. Therefore, to ensure 

that OMB gives your comments full 

consideration, it is important that OMB 

receives your comments on the 

proposed collection within 30 days after 

publication. This does not affect the 

deadline for your comments to us on the 

proposed priorities, requirements, and 

selection criteria. 

Please note that a Federal agency 

cannot conduct or sponsor a collection 

of information unless OMB approves the 

collection under the PRA and the 

corresponding information collection 

instrument displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. Notwithstanding 

any other provision of law, no person is 

required to comply with, or is subject to 

penalty for failure to comply with, a 

collection of information if the 

collection instrument does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

We will provide the OMB control 

number when we publish the notice of 

final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that this 

proposed regulatory action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities that this proposed 

regulatory action may affect are (1) 

small LEAs, and (2) nonprofit 

organizations applying for and receiving 

funds under this program in partnership 

with an LEA or SEA. The Secretary 

believes that the costs imposed on an 

applicant by the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria would be limited to paperwork 

burden related to preparing an 

application and that the benefits of 

implementing these proposals would 

outweigh any costs incurred by the 

applicant. 

Participation in the TIF program is 

voluntary. For this reason, the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would impose no 

burden on small entities unless they 

applied for funding under a TIF 

program using the priorities, 

requirements, definitions and selection 

criteria proposed in this notice. We 

expect that in determining whether to 

apply for TIF funds, an eligible entity 

would evaluate the costs of preparing an 

application and implementing a TIF 

project and weigh them against the 

benefits likely of implementing the TIF 

project. An eligible entity would 

probably apply only if it determines that 

the likely benefits exceed the costs of 

preparing an application and 

implementing a project. The likely 

benefits of applying for a TIF program 

grant include the potential receipt of a 

grant as well as other benefits that may 

accrue to an entity through its 

development of an application, such as 

the use of its TIF application to spur 

development and implementation of 

PBCSs without Federal funding through 

the TIF program. 

The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) Size Standards 

define ‘‘small entities’’ as for-profit or 

nonprofit institutions with total annual 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 29, 2012 / Notices 12273 

revenue below $7,000,000 or, if they are 

institutions controlled by small 

governmental jurisdictions (that are 

comprised of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts), with a population of 

less than 50,000. The Urban Institute’s 

National Center for Charitable Statistics 

reported that of 173,172 nonprofit 

organizations that had an educational 

mission and reported revenue to the 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by 

December 2011, 168,669 (over 97 

percent) had revenues of less than 

$5 million. In addition, there are 12,358 

LEAs in the country that meet the SBA’s 

definition of small entity. While these 

entities are eligible to apply for funding 

under the TIF program, the Secretary 

believes that only a small number of 

them will apply. In the FY 2010 TIF 

competition, approximately 23 

nonprofit organizations applied for 

funding in partnership with an LEA or 

SEA, and few of these organizations 

appeared to be a small entity. The 

Secretary has no reason to believe that 

a future competition under this program 

would be different. To the contrary, we 

expect that the FY 2012 competition 

will be similar to the FY 2010 

competition because only a limited 

number of nonprofit organizations are 

working actively on the development of 

PBCSs and many of these organizations 

are larger organizations. Thus, the 

likelihood that the priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria proposed in this notice would 

have a significant economic impact on 

small entities is minimal. 

In addition, the Secretary believes 

that the priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria 

proposed in this notice do not impose 

any additional burden on a small entity 

applying for a grant than the entity 

would face in the absence of the 

proposed action. That is, the length of 

the applications those entities would 

submit in the absence of the proposed 

regulatory action and the time needed to 

prepare an application would be 

comparable if the competition relied 

exclusively on the selection criteria in 

34 CFR 75.210 for this competition. 

Further, this proposed regulatory 

action may help a small entity 

determine whether it has the interest, 

need, or capacity to implement 

activities under the program and, thus, 

prevent a small entity that does not have 

such an interest, need, or capacity from 

absorbing the burden of applying. 

This proposed regulatory action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a small entity once it receives 

a grant because it would be able to meet 

the costs of compliance using the funds 

provided under this program and with 

any matching funds provided by 

private-sector partners. 

The Secretary invites comments from 

small nonprofit organizations and small 

LEAs as to whether they believe this 

proposed regulatory action would have 

a significant economic impact on them 

and, if so, requests evidence to support 

that belief. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is subject to the 

requirements of Executive Order 12372 

and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 

One of the objectives of the Executive 

order is to foster an intergovernmental 

partnership and a strengthened 

federalism. The Executive order relies 

on processes developed by State and 

local governments for coordination and 

review of proposed Federal financial 

assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to the program contact 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at this site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: February 24, 2012. 

Michael Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4832 Filed 2–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Public Availability of Department of 

Energy FY 2011 Service Contract 

Inventory 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Public Availability of 

FY 2011 Service Contract Inventories. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 

743 of Division C of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 

111–117), the Department of Energy 

(DOE) is publishing this notice to advise 

the public of the availability of the FY 

2011 Service Contract inventory. This 

inventory provides information on 

service contract actions over $25,000 

that were made in FY 2011. The 

information is organized by function to 

show how contracted resources are 

distributed throughout the agency. The 

inventory has been developed in 

accordance with guidance issued on 

November 5, 2010 by the Office of 

Management and Budget’s Office of 

Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). 

OFPP’s guidance is available at http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ 

omb/procurement/memo/servicecontract-inventories-guidance11052010.pdf. On December 19, 2011, 

OFPP issued additional guidance 

available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

sites/default/files/omb/procurement/ 

memo/service-contract-inventoryguidance.pdf. 

Except for minor changes to reporting 

deadlines, the guidance for preparing 

and analyzing FY 2011 inventories is 

essentially unchanged from OFPP’s 

November 5, 2010 guidance for 

preparing the FY 2010 inventory. DOE 

has posted its inventory and a summary 

of the inventory at: http://energy.gov/ 

management/downloads/servicecontract-inventory. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Questions regarding the service contract 

inventory should be directed to Jeff 

Davis in the Strategic Programs Division 

at 202–287–1877 or 

jeff.davis@hq.doe.gov. 

Dated: February 13, 2012. 

Paul Bosco, 

Director, Office of Procurement and 

Assistance Management. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4811 Filed 2–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES